The Instigator
suriaguru
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Modern teachers know neither the universal laws of nature nor the nature of anything

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,561 times Debate No: 14231
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

suriaguru

Pro

Modern teachers know neither the universal laws of nature nor the nature of anything
Ore_Ele

Con

First, let us define some terms.

"Modern" = characteristic of present-day.

"Universal laws of nature" = a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior.

"Nature" [of anything] = the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized.

Since the word "nor" is present in the resolution, it can be taken in two parts. "Modern teachers don't know the universal laws of nature" and "Modern teachers don't know the nature of anything."

The first part of this, I will pass, as no one knows all the universal laws of nature. However, some modern teachers do know the nature of some things.

Since this is going to five rounds, I will pass on the rest of this round to allow my opponent to make his opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
suriaguru

Pro

Are you sure that no one knows the laws of nature? Is there any proof to the claim that no one knows the universal laws of nautre?
Ore_Ele

Con

"Are you sure that no one knows the laws of nature? Is there any proof to the claim that no one knows the universal laws of nautre?"

Until we know everything, we won't know what we don't know, and so we don't know if there are additional laws of nature that fall into the category of "stuff we don't know." That means it is not possible to know if we know them all.

Anyway, I know that we have five rounds, so that gives us plenty of time, but if you would like to provide your reasoning for your resolution, that would be much appreciated.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 2
suriaguru

Pro

suriaguru forfeited this round.
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent was on as little as 10 hours ago, however still forfeited his round.

I will pass it back and hope for some arguments to work with.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
suriaguru

Pro

I am sure that your are ignorant of the universal laws of nature.
I am also sure that you cannot explain the nature of anything.
Why?
Your teachers have not taught them to you.
Your teachers would have taught you the universal laws of nature and how to explain the nature of anything.

Your teachers did not teach you the universal laws of nature and how to explain the nature of anything, because they had no idea on them.

If you really know the universal laws of nature, list them now!
If you really know the nature of anything, explain it know!

I know that you know many things. But, you know the nature of nothing!!!!
Ore_Ele

Con

Okay, let us start with something simple. the nature of a neutron.[1]

We know that they are made from 3 quarks (two down quarks and one up quark). Free neutrons are highly radioactive and have extreme penetration (due to not being charged). They break down in about 15 minutes. They are key to nuclear reactions, making nuclear power possible (and controllable). We know that they balance out the nucleus of atoms to help maintain stability, and are key in all forms of radioactive decay.

Would you care for more?

[1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[2] http://www.oocities.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com...

Debate Round No. 4
suriaguru

Pro

suriaguru forfeited this round.
Ore_Ele

Con

Okay, well, this was fun.

I showed that I knew the nature of something (which falls under anything) and I learned that from my teachers, therefore they must have known it. Thus refuting the resolution.

Thank you for reading, please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
wow, the new format added in a lot of spaces.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
suriaguruOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This was originally a counter bomb but looking at the debate Pro deserves to lose 7 pts for forfeiting continuously, posting no sources, and simply not trying at all
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
suriaguruOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04